3 ms·

What is the Intel non-fraternization policy? What romantic relationships are banned?

ceejayoz 8y ago
Quite a few workplaces forbid relationships between managers and their subordinates. As CEO, that presumably puts everyone off-limits.
- jrs95 8y ago
  Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Perhaps there was an ulterior motive for removing him. Otherwise I would expect Intel to just hide the information in order to protect the financial interests of the company.
  - mythz 8y ago
    Something strange is happening in Intel land, Brian Krzanich recently sold off the majority of his Intel stock, only retaining the minimum number allowable: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-kr...
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Probably saw this coming and wanted to convert stock into cash to avoid ay small print about stock clawbacks.
      - jrs95 8y ago
        Would that qualify as insider trading? Seems like Zuck did a similar thing recently before Facebooks most recent privacy scandal
        walshemj 8y ago
        Don't think so if he did it because to move to the next process would be delayed a year yes. Its a legal principal that you have the right to arrange your affairs to maximise your benefit - if he thought they where trying to oust him cheaply by using something from his past - I don't see the issue.
  - exelius 8y ago
    There’s almost always some complicating factor we don’t know about in cases like this: I would bet that blackmail was involved, he tried to cover it up, and the board felt they couldn’t trust him as a result of the cover-up. Because you’re right; most companies would just include the lower level employee in a round of layoffs and pay them a couple years salary to stay quiet about it all. I feel companies are getting a #MeToo pass in cases like this: Wall Street hasn’t been holding companies responsible for the bad personal behavior of execs if those companies address the issues proactively. Investors are only punishing them if the problems are representative of the overall culture; and in this case that does not seem to be the case. But I’m almost certain that he wouldn’t have been fired without lying to the board in a coverup. Violating fraternization policies usually isn’t a firable offense — a CEO only gets fired when the board of directors loses the ability to trust them.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Barring Minority Report's pre-crime telepaths, I'm not sure how you'd apply this policy before the fact?
    - jrs95 8y ago
      It sounded like this was something that had happened in the past and was basically over with, not something that was ongoing. So either it ended amicably or HR made arrangements to ensure it wasn't an ongoing problem for the business. I'm skeptical of the delay being entirely due to "investigation", it seems more like this was something that was known about and later used to force him out.
- at-fates-hands 8y ago
  Yeap. Back in 2012 the Best Buy founder and the chairman both resigned over an inappropriate relationship the CEO had with a subordinate which went unreported: http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-over-scandal/151365265/ http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-ove...
amyjess 8y ago
According to the CNBC article linked elsewhere in the thread: > Krzanich violated a policy that said he could not have a relationship with either a direct or indirect report
exelius 8y ago
At most companies it basically means that a manager should not have a romantic relationship with anyone in their chain of command. In the case of a CEO this would extend to the entire company. I know it sounds punitive, but it’s really a question of fairness to every other employee working for that manager — nothing improper needs to be done by either party for it to negatively impact the other employees. It also discourages managers from taking their pick of young staff members, and discourages any lower-level staff who might try to sleep their way to the top. FWIW, most companies also have a reporting policy where you can report a relationship to HR and request a transfer to another department to avoid violating the policy. But that wouldn’t apply to a CEO — people in that position are simply expected to have better judgment than that.
- amyjess 8y ago
  > I know it sounds punitive, but it’s really a question of fairness to every other employee working for that manager — nothing improper needs to be done by either party for it to negatively impact the other employees. > It also discourages managers from taking their pick of young staff members, and discourages any lower-level staff who might try to sleep their way to the top. In addition, allowing these kinds of relationships also raises issues of sexual consent. Imagine this scenario: CEO: Let's have sex tonight. Employee: I'm not in the mood. CEO: Looks like somebody's getting a bad performance review. Employee: Fine then... let's get this over with.
  - exelius 8y ago
    Oh of course; but I feel this kind of exploitation is closer to sexual assault than a consensual relationship. Any relationship with a strong power imbalance can lead to this. Which is a big reason companies discourage this through fraternization policies; a sexual predator using your company as a hunting ground is a huge legal risk. I was more referring to the situation where someone is working under say, a senior VP of another department. The lower status person would have an advantage over their peers in that they would have many more opportunities for personal social interactions with senior leadership as a result of their romantic relationship. Overall, it’s best to be avoided. :)
- 8y ago
marcosdumay 8y ago
Having a high level position in a company comes naturally with an entire new set of rules to be obeyed, whatever those rules are.

Quite a few workplaces forbid relationships between managers and their subordinates. As CEO, that presumably puts everyone off-limits.

jrs95 8y ago
Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Perhaps there was an ulterior motive for removing him. Otherwise I would expect Intel to just hide the information in order to protect the financial interests of the company.
- mythz 8y ago
  Something strange is happening in Intel land, Brian Krzanich recently sold off the majority of his Intel stock, only retaining the minimum number allowable: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-kr...
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Probably saw this coming and wanted to convert stock into cash to avoid ay small print about stock clawbacks.
    - jrs95 8y ago
      Would that qualify as insider trading? Seems like Zuck did a similar thing recently before Facebooks most recent privacy scandal
      - walshemj 8y ago
        Don't think so if he did it because to move to the next process would be delayed a year yes. Its a legal principal that you have the right to arrange your affairs to maximise your benefit - if he thought they where trying to oust him cheaply by using something from his past - I don't see the issue.
- exelius 8y ago
  There’s almost always some complicating factor we don’t know about in cases like this: I would bet that blackmail was involved, he tried to cover it up, and the board felt they couldn’t trust him as a result of the cover-up. Because you’re right; most companies would just include the lower level employee in a round of layoffs and pay them a couple years salary to stay quiet about it all. I feel companies are getting a #MeToo pass in cases like this: Wall Street hasn’t been holding companies responsible for the bad personal behavior of execs if those companies address the issues proactively. Investors are only punishing them if the problems are representative of the overall culture; and in this case that does not seem to be the case. But I’m almost certain that he wouldn’t have been fired without lying to the board in a coverup. Violating fraternization policies usually isn’t a firable offense — a CEO only gets fired when the board of directors loses the ability to trust them.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > Seems odd to apply it after the fact in this case, though. Barring Minority Report's pre-crime telepaths, I'm not sure how you'd apply this policy before the fact?
  - jrs95 8y ago
    It sounded like this was something that had happened in the past and was basically over with, not something that was ongoing. So either it ended amicably or HR made arrangements to ensure it wasn't an ongoing problem for the business. I'm skeptical of the delay being entirely due to "investigation", it seems more like this was something that was known about and later used to force him out.
at-fates-hands 8y ago
Yeap. Back in 2012 the Best Buy founder and the chairman both resigned over an inappropriate relationship the CEO had with a subordinate which went unreported: http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-over-scandal/151365265/ http://www.startribune.com/monday-best-buy-founder-quits-ove...

amyjess 8y ago

According to the CNBC article linked elsewhere in the thread: > Krzanich violated a policy that said he could not have a relationship with either a direct or indirect report

exelius 8y ago

At most companies it basically means that a manager should not have a romantic relationship with anyone in their chain of command. In the case of a CEO this would extend to the entire company. I know it sounds punitive, but it’s really a question of fairness to every other employee working for that manager — nothing improper needs to be done by either party for it to negatively impact the other employees. It also discourages managers from taking their pick of young staff members, and discourages any lower-level staff who might try to sleep their way to the top. FWIW, most companies also have a reporting policy where you can report a relationship to HR and request a transfer to another department to avoid violating the policy. But that wouldn’t apply to a CEO — people in that position are simply expected to have better judgment than that.

amyjess 8y ago
> I know it sounds punitive, but it’s really a question of fairness to every other employee working for that manager — nothing improper needs to be done by either party for it to negatively impact the other employees. > It also discourages managers from taking their pick of young staff members, and discourages any lower-level staff who might try to sleep their way to the top. In addition, allowing these kinds of relationships also raises issues of sexual consent. Imagine this scenario: CEO: Let's have sex tonight. Employee: I'm not in the mood. CEO: Looks like somebody's getting a bad performance review. Employee: Fine then... let's get this over with.
- exelius 8y ago
  Oh of course; but I feel this kind of exploitation is closer to sexual assault than a consensual relationship. Any relationship with a strong power imbalance can lead to this. Which is a big reason companies discourage this through fraternization policies; a sexual predator using your company as a hunting ground is a huge legal risk. I was more referring to the situation where someone is working under say, a senior VP of another department. The lower status person would have an advantage over their peers in that they would have many more opportunities for personal social interactions with senior leadership as a result of their romantic relationship. Overall, it’s best to be avoided. :)
8y ago

marcosdumay 8y ago

Having a high level position in a company comes naturally with an entire new set of rules to be obeyed, whatever those rules are.